In the News

[CCB III]

6 minutes ago, tutankamun said:

I didn’t say it did but like I said before: Thin end of the wedge.

Fuck off. 
 

 

[elephantstone78]

6 minutes ago, tutankamun said:

But reptiles DO rule the world!! 

See it’s stuff like this that makes me think you are at it and are actually a normal person that for some reason spends a significant portion of your free time winding people up with conspiracy after conspiracy nonsense. 
 

I think the same about shoofta and his online persona. 
 

I suppose I just find that easier to believe than anyone genuinely believing the utter muck you (and he) come out with. 
 

Actually, come to think of it I think you two would get on like a house on fire. 
 

Do you have space for a new friend?

[Ke1t]

Just now, tutankamun said:

I’m confused, is A colluding with B to kill C? If that’s the case then he’s an accessory/ accomplice whatever.

No.

A, in order to get his hands on, say the contents of C's will, invented a scenario which could, over a period of years, impact B's thought processes to the point that B took action against C. 

A plot... a scheme if you will. 

[tutankamun]

Just now, Ke1t said:

No.

A, in order to get his hands on, say the contents of C's will, invented a scenario which could, over a period of years, impact B's thought processes to the point that B took action against C. 

A plot... a scheme if you will. 

Are we still talking about Alex Jones? Or is this a different scenario?

[tutankamun]

4 minutes ago, CCB III said:

Fuck off. 
 

 

Oh dear. Time for bed maybe?

[Ke1t]

Just now, tutankamun said:

Are we still talking about Alex Jones? Or is this a different scenario?

Same scenario. 

The point being, if there's no point at which we're accountable for the things we say, or the actions those words elicit, then you have a situation where, for example, Hitler bears no responsibility for the Holocaust. 

He wanted a 'Final Solution to the Jewish Question', it was other people who actually did the Holocausting based on the words Hitler said. To my knowledge Hitler didn't gas a single Jew. 

 

[CCB III]

5 minutes ago, tutankamun said:

Oh dear. Time for bed maybe?

No. Just fed up of people like you existing. 
 

Open your eyes, it's bad enough here in the real world. 

[tutankamun]

3 minutes ago, Ke1t said:

Same scenario. 

The point being, if there's no point at which we're accountable for the things we say, or the actions those words elicit, then you have a situation where, for example, Hitler bears no responsibility for the Holocaust. 

He wanted a 'Final Solution to the Jewish Question', it was other people who actually did the Holocausting based on the words Hitler said. To my knowledge Hitler didn't gas a single Jew. 

 

Fuck me. Ordering people to do something is a far cry from expressing an opinion.

Isn’t it?

[Ke1t]

Just now, tutankamun said:

Fuck me. Ordering people to do something is a far cry from expressing an opinion.

Isn’t it?

No. 

You can choose to ignore an order.  Orders are just words. If you choose to do something based on words then it's your fault, not the guy saying the words. 

 

[CCB III]

2 minutes ago, tutankamun said:

Fuck me. Ordering people to do something is a far cry from expressing an opinion.

Isn’t it?

Surely someone's opinion has to be based in some truth? 
 

Seriously, if left to you, would you just have someone like AJ continue without repercussion? 
 

"Och it's just his opinion my kid wasn't murdered and I'm covering it up"

 

Ridiculous 

[tutankamun]

1 minute ago, CCB III said:

No. Just fed up of people like you existing. 
 

Open your eyes, it's bad enough here in the real world. 

Funny that. I think YOU need to open your eyes.

That’s just my opinion, I would never wish you didn’t exist.

However I won’t get all hissy about it like you lot, you’re entitled to your opinion 

[tutankamun]

3 minutes ago, CCB III said:

Surely someone's opinion has to be based in some truth? 
 

Seriously, if left to you, would you just have someone like AJ continue without repercussion? 
 

"Och it's just his opinion my kid wasn't murdered and I'm covering it up"

 

Ridiculous 

Who is the arbiter of truth?

[CCB III]

4 minutes ago, tutankamun said:

Who is the arbiter of truth?

Jesus fucking wept 

[tutankamun]

6 minutes ago, Ke1t said:

No. 

You can choose to ignore an order.  Orders are just words. If you choose to do something based on words then it's your fault, not the guy saying the words. 

 

Good argument. But the people obeying those orders must have felt massive pressure to obey. I understand it was not considered a defence by the (Jews) lawyers in the trials later on. 
I still think it’s a far cry from AJ expressing his opinion to Hitler ordering his minions to do bad things. 
Have we reached Godwin’s Law? 

[tutankamun]

4 minutes ago, CCB III said:

Jesus fucking wept 

Hopefully not you for Gawds sake lol

[Guest Grays Babylon 1875]

10 minutes ago, tutankamun said:

Who is the arbiter of truth?

Joe Rogan. 

[Redforever86]

Just now, Grays Babylon 1875 said:

Joe Rogan. 

Haha I was just away to tell them to both kills themselves but you cheered me right up you hibbee cunt

[Ke1t]

9 minutes ago, tutankamun said:

Good argument. But the people obeying those orders must have felt massive pressure to obey. I understand it was not considered a defence by the (Jews) lawyers in the trials later on. 
I still think it’s a far cry from AJ expressing his opinion to Hitler ordering his minions to do bad things. 
Have we reached Godwin’s Law? 

The guy being told that a neighbour plans to rape and murder his kids would probably feel enormous pressure to save his kids. 

So are you saying that responsibility can only be attributed to the instigator if there's an arbitrary amount of 'pressure' felt by the subject of those instigations? 

That seems like a random criteria that you've just decided upon based upon a little thought, since you didn't express that criteria until now. 

I'm not trying to be a dick, I'm just trying to highlight that if you're going to begin attributing random criteria as a reason that the guy saying the words CAN be held accountable as the debate evolves then your initial position, they're just words, is no longer tenable, and you're entering a state where you have to begin creating ad hoc reasoning to justify the original position. 

Who's to say a steely-eyed Nazi general feels any more pressure to obey an order than a weak neighbour does when he's told someone plans to rape and murder his kids. 

Everyone has different thresholds where they feel pressure, so how can that be used as a criteria? 

EDIT: Incidentally, before I forget, the euphemism used by the German high command, and Hitler, was A Final Solution to the Jewish Question.  Hitler tasked Himmler with dealing with the Jewish Question. Himmler tasked Goering with said 'Final Solution', Goerring then tasked Heydrich with 'a complete solution', and Heydrich convened the Wannsee Conference where he tasked his underlings to start gassing the Jews en mass.  By this point Hitler is 4 stages removed from the implementation of the Holocaust, and at least 5 from throwing a gas cannister into a shower unit full of men, women, and children. 

I'm not calling anyone a Nazi, except Nazis, so I think Godwin's law has not been invoked. 

[tutankamun]

17 minutes ago, Ke1t said:

No. 

You can choose to ignore an order.  Orders are just words. If you choose to do something based on words then it's your fault, not the guy saying the words. 

 

Wait a minute that’s an argument against yourself.

You said AJ should be punished because other people gave the parents death threats. He didn’t order them to give death threats, he probably doesn’t even know them.
Yet “If you choose to do something based on words then it's your fault, not the guy saying the words.” 

[Guest Grays Babylon 1875]

1 minute ago, Redforever86 said:

Haha I was just away to tell them to both kills themselves but you cheered me right up you hibbee cunt

Facetiousness is a wonderful tool when shit gets mental.

Pelosi should have walked out on the runway in Taiwan dressed as Rod Hull and Emu. 

Roy Hudd. 

[tutankamun]

4 minutes ago, Ke1t said:

The guy being told that a neighbour plans to rape and murder his kids would probably feel enormous pressure to save his kids. 

So are you saying that responsibility can only be attributed to the instigator if there's an arbitrary amount of 'pressure' felt by the subject of those instigations? 

That seems like a random criteria that you've just decided upon based upon a little thought, since you didn't express that criteria until now. 

I'm not trying to be a dick, I'm just trying to highlight that if you're going to begin attributing random criteria as a reason that the guy saying the words CAN be held accountable as the debate evolves then your initial position, they're just words, is no longer tenable, and you're entering a state where you have to begin creating ad hoc reasoning to justify the original position. 

Who's to say a steely-eyed Nazi general feels any more pressure to obey an order than a weak neighbour does when he's told someone plans to rape and murder his kids. 

Everyone has different thresholds where they feel pressure, so how can that be used as a criteria? 

 

AJ didn’t tell anyone to do anything 

[tutankamun]

For what it’s worth I believe AJ is controlled opposition. I don’t support him personally at all.

I support free speech though. All you Commies can GTF  

[Ke1t]

9 minutes ago, tutankamun said:

Wait a minute that’s an argument against yourself.

You said AJ should be punished because other people gave the parents death threats. He didn’t order them to give death threats, he probably doesn’t even know them.
Yet “If you choose to do something based on words then it's your fault, not the guy saying the words.” 

I was reiterating your argument for clarity when I said that, not making the argument myself

[Ke1t]

11 minutes ago, tutankamun said:

AJ didn’t tell anyone to do anything 

What about the pressure he put on his listeners to save their second amendment rights?

I mean, they must have felt enormous pressure, right? 

 

[tutankamun]

1 minute ago, Ke1t said:

What about the pressure he put on his listeners to save their second amendment rights?

I mean, they must have felt enormous pressure, right? 

 

Lol. AJ the Fuhrer.

Please.

[Ke1t]

2 minutes ago, tutankamun said:

Lol. AJ the Fuhrer.

Please.

I'm not comparing them, I'm using the situations analogously in order to discover whether you would hold anyone responsible for their words. 

We've uncovered two scenarios that you've decided upon in the course of our exchange.  

1. An order. Even though an order, like a suggestion, can be ignored. 

2. An undecided, certainly immeasurable,  amount of 'pressure'. 

I mean, these aren't terrifically compelling excuses for being held accountable, are they? 

 

 

[tutankamun]

49 minutes ago, tutankamun said:

Fuck me. Ordering people to do something is a far cry from expressing an opinion.

Isn’t it?

 

47 minutes ago, Ke1t said:

No. 

You can choose to ignore an order.  Orders are just words. If you choose to do something based on words then it's your fault, not the guy saying the words. 

 

 

16 minutes ago, Ke1t said:

I was reiterating your argument for clarity when I said that, not making the argument myself

OK 

[tutankamun]

9 minutes ago, Ke1t said:

I'm not comparing them, I'm using the situations analogously in order to discover whether you would hold anyone responsible for their words. 

We've uncovered two scenarios that you've decided upon in the course of our exchange.  

1. An order. Even though an order, like a suggestion, can be ignored. 

2. An undecided, certainly immeasurable,  amount of 'pressure'. 

I mean, these aren't terrifically compelling excuses for being held accountable, are they? 

 

 

Condescending much?

“We’ve” uncovered fuck all and I’ve decided on nothing. 

People ARE responsible for their words. They will be judged on what they say. My original point was it shouldn’t be a legal issue.
Society can have an opinion on what anyone says but shutting people down via legal means is a dangerous precedent. AJ can afford to pay any fines meted out, but the vast majority of us ordinary folk cannot.

Who decides what words can or cannot be said? These days if someone claims to be upset, that’s all it takes.

I call bullshit.

[Poodler]

2 hours ago, CCB III said:

what the fuck are you talking about you retarded piece of garbage?

 

Kids were killed at a school, he continues to perpetrate this myth that it didn't happen, these kids didn't really die and the parents were actors. 
 

You don't think that spreading objectively false information is worthy of punishment?

 

They are quite right to be awarded damages, imagine grieving your child and this disgusting monkey pig man is telling his equally repulsive, moronic and impressionable following that your kid didn't die and you are an actor.

 

Both he and the MAGA maggots who threatened the parents should be punished. 
 

God, you're a fucking dipshit.  
 

 

He doesn’t continue that myth he admitted ages ago he was wrong 

[tutankamun]

7 minutes ago, Poodler said:

He doesn’t continue that myth he admitted ages ago he was wrong 

He shouldn’t have to.
You are allowed to have an opinion, even if everyone else thinks it’s wrong.